bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 27, 2017 13:18:58 GMT -5
I got the impression that this was related much more to Basketball and not necessarily to other NCAA sports. Basketball is big interest (money) so I can see incentives for fine tuning improvements.
One of the biggest issues is coming up with a measure that doesn't reward 'running up the score'. And this is what is killing predictive (future) metrics for Basketball. I would think this is much less of an issue for VB given that games are played by matches and one really cannot let up w/o risking losses. Basketball coaches generally do not like a measure that rewards a team for running up the score.
The other issue as mentioned in the quotes above is what are we trying to measure 'Most Accomplished' or Team most likely to succeed. And for this - we may never agree. An example would be: How do we handle two teams with the same schedule (hypothetical example). Team A goes 28-2 and wins 55.5% of the points played. Team B goes 26-4 winning 28.5% of the points played. Accomplishment metrics will seed Team A ahead of Team B. Who is more likely to win metric will favor Team B.
Living within RPI - which is most likely what will continue for NCAA volleyball. I have wondered if better understanding of how RPI really works and how to effectively 'game' the system would negate all the advantages from RPI gaming? If every team and conference strategically scheduled - then maybe RPI would become better. And for this - I don't think there is equal knowledge on how to maximize RPI. One small example - if teams really understood how to maximize their RPI (and cared), they would never schedule an odd number of nonconference matches. How many coaches know that they have the potential to gain in having an even number of OOC matches vs. an odd number?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 27, 2017 13:28:14 GMT -5
I realize that whatever system is used, smart coaches are going to do their best to 'game' the system. But, it seems like the current RPI leads to some absurdities in scheduling. Instead of coaches trying to put together a schedule that will best develop their team and players and create exciting matches for fans, too often coaches seem to focus on only getting wins against certain types of teams. I disagree. I think the matches that happen because of RPI are actually very good for NCAA Volleyball. Why would Pac-12 and Big Ten teams ever schedule Western Kentucky, Lipscomb, Wyoming, etc if there weren't an advantage to it? You can shut those teams out of getting quality matches and they'll never be able to build an at large resume if they don't win their conference. I'm not necessarily saying that it's the NCAA's job to do that, but I think it is a very positive side effect. That was what RPI was designed for. And as an incentive to do that, it actually works reasonable well. The world of NCAA D1 MBB, however, has changed almost entirely from what it was back when they first came up with RPI.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 27, 2017 13:41:03 GMT -5
I got the impression that this was related much more to Basketball and not necessarily to other NCAA sports. Basketball is big interest (money) so I can see incentives for fine tuning improvements. One of the biggest issues is coming up with a measure that doesn't reward 'running up the score'. And this is what is killing predictive (future) metrics for Basketball. I would think this is much less of an issue for VB given that games are played by matches and one really cannot let up w/o risking losses. Basketball coaches generally do not like a measure that rewards a team for running up the score. The other issue as mentioned in the quotes above is what are we trying to measure 'Most Accomplished' or Team most likely to succeed. And for this - we may never agree. An example would be: How do we handle two teams with the same schedule (hypothetical example). Team A goes 28-2 and wins 55.5% of the points played. Team B goes 26-4 winning 28.5% of the points played. Accomplishment metrics will seed Team A ahead of Team B. Who is more likely to win metric will favor Team B. Living within RPI - which is most likely what will continue for NCAA volleyball. I have wondered if better understanding of how RPI really works and how to effectively 'game' the system would negate all the advantages from RPI gaming? If every team and conference strategically scheduled - then maybe RPI would become better. And for this - I don't think there is equal knowledge on how to maximize RPI. One small example - if teams really understood how to maximize their RPI (and cared), they would never schedule an odd number of nonconference matches. How many coaches know that they have the potential to gain in having an even number of OOC matches vs. an odd number? this argument that puts the burden on teams to 'schedule, or game, better' is not the only answer yes, every team bears some responsibility but the fact remains, that with a regional bias, it isn't in the interest of schools (financially) to be forced to overcome that by increasing costs to overcome - coaches know about RPI, but it isn't a simple thing when there are travel & financial hurdles to overcome. it makes sense for most non-conf matches (I am not saying ALL of them) to be in your region just use a system that doesn't have a regional bias, doesn't mean it has to be weighted too heavily on the points scored side - RPI has a regional bias, so it should be discarded for that reason alone - kinda of shameless for the NCAA to use a system that they know has a bias against certain conferences
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Feb 27, 2017 14:12:49 GMT -5
One small example - if teams really understood how to maximize their RPI (and cared), they would never schedule an odd number of nonconference matches. How many coaches know that they have the potential to gain in having an even number of OOC matches vs. an odd number? Huh? Why is that? Edit: Nevermind. I guess you mean it's easier to get the scheduling bonus.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 27, 2017 14:33:33 GMT -5
One small example - if teams really understood how to maximize their RPI (and cared), they would never schedule an odd number of nonconference matches. How many coaches know that they have the potential to gain in having an even number of OOC matches vs. an odd number? Huh? Why is that? Edit: Nevermind. I guess you mean it's easier to get the scheduling bonus. Yep, you are not maximizing your chances for the scheduling bonus with an odd # of games. And I bet that very few coaches know this. It is small and probably not going to matter, but if we are trying to maximize RPI potential - they need to know.
And if you are team where RPI will matter - you need to try and get that scheduling bonus.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 27, 2017 14:49:43 GMT -5
I got the impression that this was related much more to Basketball and not necessarily to other NCAA sports. Basketball is big interest (money) so I can see incentives for fine tuning improvements. One of the biggest issues is coming up with a measure that doesn't reward 'running up the score'. And this is what is killing predictive (future) metrics for Basketball. I would think this is much less of an issue for VB given that games are played by matches and one really cannot let up w/o risking losses. Basketball coaches generally do not like a measure that rewards a team for running up the score. The other issue as mentioned in the quotes above is what are we trying to measure 'Most Accomplished' or Team most likely to succeed. And for this - we may never agree. An example would be: How do we handle two teams with the same schedule (hypothetical example). Team A goes 28-2 and wins 55.5% of the points played. Team B goes 26-4 winning 28.5% of the points played. Accomplishment metrics will seed Team A ahead of Team B. Who is more likely to win metric will favor Team B. Living within RPI - which is most likely what will continue for NCAA volleyball. I have wondered if better understanding of how RPI really works and how to effectively 'game' the system would negate all the advantages from RPI gaming? If every team and conference strategically scheduled - then maybe RPI would become better. And for this - I don't think there is equal knowledge on how to maximize RPI. One small example - if teams really understood how to maximize their RPI (and cared), they would never schedule an odd number of nonconference matches. How many coaches know that they have the potential to gain in having an even number of OOC matches vs. an odd number? this argument that puts the burden on teams to 'schedule, or game, better' is not the only answer yes, every team bears some responsibility but the fact remains, that with a regional bias, it isn't in the interest of schools (financially) to be forced to overcome that by increasing costs to overcome - coaches know about RPI, but it isn't a simple thing when there are travel & financial hurdles to overcome. it makes sense for most non-conf matches (I am not saying ALL of them) to be in your region
just use a system that doesn't have a regional bias, doesn't mean it has to be weighted too heavily on the points scored side - RPI has a regional bias, so it should be discarded for that reason alone - kinda of shameless for the NCAA to use a system that they know has a bias against certain conferences This would be the only excuse for conferences not being able to overcome the regional bias. However, my sense is that teams in the West are more likely to view their scheduling in terms of their own team and teams in the East are scheduling for the good of the conference.
The opportunity for scheduling are not the same possibly for financial reasons - doesn't mean they couldn't do better. Look at San Francisco's non conference schedule last year - doesn't look very regional to me. Savannah State, UNC Asheville, Georgia, Indiana, Columbia, Campbell, Princeton, St. John's, Brown, UCSB, UC Irvine, N.Arizona, UC Riverside. That schedule doesn't look much different than Rutgers. As it turns out, both teams went 4-9 out of conference. This was actually an appropriate schedule for San Francisco (they just ended up being a bad team). Seems like more Western teams could expand the regions of their opponents, but choose not to.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Feb 27, 2017 14:58:41 GMT -5
this argument that puts the burden on teams to 'schedule, or game, better' is not the only answer yes, every team bears some responsibility but the fact remains, that with a regional bias, it isn't in the interest of schools (financially) to be forced to overcome that by increasing costs to overcome - coaches know about RPI, but it isn't a simple thing when there are travel & financial hurdles to overcome. it makes sense for most non-conf matches (I am not saying ALL of them) to be in your region
just use a system that doesn't have a regional bias, doesn't mean it has to be weighted too heavily on the points scored side - RPI has a regional bias, so it should be discarded for that reason alone - kinda of shameless for the NCAA to use a system that they know has a bias against certain conferences This would be the only excuse for conferences not being able to overcome the regional bias. However, my sense is that teams in the West are more likely to view their scheduling in terms of their own team and teams in the East are scheduling for the good of the conference.
The opportunity for scheduling are not the same possibly for financial reasons - doesn't mean they couldn't do better. Look at San Francisco's non conference schedule last year - doesn't look very regional to me. Savannah State, UNC Asheville, Georgia, Indiana, Columbia, Campbell, Princeton, St. John's, Brown, UCSB, UC Irvine, N.Arizona, UC Riverside. That schedule doesn't look much different than Rutgers. As it turns out, both teams went 4-9 out of conference. This was actually an appropriate schedule for San Francisco (they just ended up being a bad team). Seems like more Western teams could expand the regions of their opponents, but choose not to.
I think it can be simplistic to think one can always 'game' RPI one adage is to just schedule decent 'East' for the western teams - it's one thing to try to project your opponents schedule while also trying to get agreements for home and homes, etc. a lot of people on here try to make it sound easy I've seen LB's schedule where I thought it would be great for RPI (good ACC & SEC opponents from prior years), solid western opponents - and then it just falls flat it really is not as easy as a lot of people make it sound - it's not s if like coaches of teams ranked in that purgatory of 40-100 don't realize they want RPI to be on their side - but there are a lot of variables to scheduling my point is, overcoming RPI bias shouldn't be a primary focus of scheduling - it's neanderthal
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 27, 2017 15:15:22 GMT -5
I've seen LB's schedule where I thought it would be great for RPI (good ACC & SEC opponents from prior years), solid western opponents - and then it just falls flat That's because despite years of complaining about the RPI, you *still* have no idea how it works or what a good RPI schedule looks like.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 27, 2017 15:25:13 GMT -5
This would be the only excuse for conferences not being able to overcome the regional bias. However, my sense is that teams in the West are more likely to view their scheduling in terms of their own team and teams in the East are scheduling for the good of the conference.
The opportunity for scheduling are not the same possibly for financial reasons - doesn't mean they couldn't do better. Look at San Francisco's non conference schedule last year - doesn't look very regional to me. Savannah State, UNC Asheville, Georgia, Indiana, Columbia, Campbell, Princeton, St. John's, Brown, UCSB, UC Irvine, N.Arizona, UC Riverside. That schedule doesn't look much different than Rutgers. As it turns out, both teams went 4-9 out of conference. This was actually an appropriate schedule for San Francisco (they just ended up being a bad team). Seems like more Western teams could expand the regions of their opponents, but choose not to.
I think it can be simplistic to think one can always 'game' RPI one adage is to just schedule decent 'East' for the western teams - it's one thing to try to project your opponents schedule while also trying to get agreements for home and homes, etc. a lot of people on here try to make it sound easy I've seen LB's schedule where I thought it would be great for RPI (good ACC & SEC opponents from prior years), solid western opponents - and then it just falls flat it really is not as easy as a lot of people make it sound - it's not s if like coaches of teams ranked in that purgatory of 40-100 don't realize they want RPI to be on their side - but there are a lot of variables to scheduling my point is, overcoming RPI bias shouldn't be a primary focus of scheduling - it's neanderthal Agreed - there is no guarantee and things can work out badly despite doing the best job of scheduling. But that is true for every team regardless of their region of the country. I am talking about improving ones odds (and all teams are not doing this).
My hypothesis is there would be no regional bias if everyone (conferences) gamed the system. That may not be the best way to get to the right solution, but if we are going to rely on RPI it may be the only way to get to a more acceptable answer. Better RPI Education and a commitment from the conferences with their schools.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 27, 2017 15:37:50 GMT -5
I think it can be simplistic to think one can always 'game' RPI one adage is to just schedule decent 'East' for the western teams - it's one thing to try to project your opponents schedule while also trying to get agreements for home and homes, etc. a lot of people on here try to make it sound easy I've seen LB's schedule where I thought it would be great for RPI (good ACC & SEC opponents from prior years), solid western opponents - and then it just falls flat it really is not as easy as a lot of people make it sound - it's not s if like coaches of teams ranked in that purgatory of 40-100 don't realize they want RPI to be on their side - but there are a lot of variables to scheduling my point is, overcoming RPI bias shouldn't be a primary focus of scheduling - it's neanderthal Agreed - there is no guarantee and things can work out badly despite doing the best job of scheduling. But that is true for every team regardless of their region of the country. I am talking about improving ones odds (and all teams are not doing this).
My hypothesis is there would be no regional bias if everyone (conferences) gamed the system. That may not be the best way to get to the right solution, but if we are going to rely on RPI it may be the only way to get to a more acceptable answer. Better RPI Education and a commitment from the conferences with their schools.
Most Western teams simply aren't willing to fly across the country in September to play the likes of Dayton or Howard or Florida Gulf Coast, all of which would have been excellent RPI boosters last year. Besides, when Washington *did* do that last year, they got trashed for it and ended up being seeded below two teams that they placed ahead of in conference play.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 27, 2017 15:55:56 GMT -5
Agreed - there is no guarantee and things can work out badly despite doing the best job of scheduling. But that is true for every team regardless of their region of the country. I am talking about improving ones odds (and all teams are not doing this).
My hypothesis is there would be no regional bias if everyone (conferences) gamed the system. That may not be the best way to get to the right solution, but if we are going to rely on RPI it may be the only way to get to a more acceptable answer. Better RPI Education and a commitment from the conferences with their schools.
Most Western teams simply aren't willing to fly across the country in September to play the likes of Dayton or Howard or Florida Gulf Coast, all of which would have been excellent RPI boosters last year. Besides, when Washington *did* do that last year, they got trashed for it and ended up being seeded below two teams that they placed ahead of in conference play. I think the problem isn't that the Western teams aren't willing, it's that the ones who are getting hammered (Big West/MWC teams - though to be fair MWC figured it out this year) generally can't afford it. It's not a surprise the big money PAC-12 and well-to-do private schools in the WCC have been able to schedule well enough to mitigate most of the RPI bias. Washington scheduled better than they have, but only got halfway there. There were still plenty of clunkers (Maryland, Seattle, Idaho, UVU, Oklahoma), and got kind of lazy in the games they did try to game. Programs who are not perennially strong and graduate their core contributors (such as Villanova, JMU) are probably going to disappoint.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 27, 2017 15:58:46 GMT -5
Most Western teams simply aren't willing to fly across the country in September to play the likes of Dayton or Howard or Florida Gulf Coast, all of which would have been excellent RPI boosters last year. Besides, when Washington *did* do that last year, they got trashed for it and ended up being seeded below two teams that they placed ahead of in conference play. I think the problem isn't that the Western teams aren't willing, it's that the ones who are getting hammered (Big West/MWC teams) generally can't afford it. That's what I meant by "willing". Spending money (or not spending it) is a choice. It's a choice the Eastern teams don't have to make, though, which is the heart of the problem.
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Feb 27, 2017 16:18:06 GMT -5
Can't happen soon enough. There is no need to find the perfect solution straightaway, just something better than what we've had. I think as soon as people decide that RPI no longer works, then it will be much easier to make tweaks going forward. Up until now, it seems, the NCAA has been afraid of change, and THAT was the biggest impediment to improving the selection and seeding. Actually, that Is the wrong approach because you need to replace a flawed but workable system. Now you want to replace it with a work in progress. What needs to happen is to create a parallel system to compare against the RPI. Then people can compare. But that still ignores that everyone has different criteria for being eligible for the big dance. I'm sure no one will present a new system with the idea that it's a work-in-progress. I was thinking out loud. Rarely does a design result in a once-and-done product. I was considering how the NFL has been conducting themselves over the past decade or so. They are not afraid to make rule changes or to revert back when those changes don't work. One thing is certain, the process needs revision. RPI is always a point of contention among fans of many NCAA sports (besides BB).
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016)
Posts: 12,447
|
Post by bluepenquin on Feb 27, 2017 16:59:13 GMT -5
Mtn West Conference went 91-46 (.664) last year (non conference). 51.1% of their matches were against teams not in the mountain or pacific time zone.
WCC went 73-44 (.624) and 43.5% of their matches were against teams not in the mountain or pacific time zone.
I recognize that the MWC is geographically farther east than the WCC - but then the California schools in the MWC also had very high % of games east of the Rockies. Fresno State (72.7%), San Diego State (50%), and San Jose (58.3%). And then for the WCC - San Francisco had 69.2% of their matches East of the Rockies. Utah State had the most harmful schedule for their conference - only going 6-6 and playing only 1 of their 12 matches outside the mountain or pacific time zone - but the rest of the conference scheduled well.
Just because you schedule more to the East, doesn't necessarily make the scheduling better, but it certainly opens up more opportunities. I have no idea of the financial impact on these kinds of decisions - or which universities might be more sports poor.
Another big difference in the scheduling of these two conferences is matches against the PAC12. 17.9% of the matches by the WCC is against the PAC12 while only 5.8% of the MWC matches are against the PAC12. That 17.9% is kind of an RPI killer - the ACC, Big 12, and SEC don't play the Big Ten this much - they will keep it below 10%. What is worse - not even the best WCC teams were playing PAC teams. BYU only played one match against the PAC and San Diego two.
Big West only played 32.7% of their matches against teams east of the Rockies.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 27, 2017 17:22:08 GMT -5
Mtn West Conference went 91-46 (.664) last year (non conference). 51.1% of their matches were against teams not in the mountain or pacific time zone. WCC went 73-44 (.624) and 43.5% of their matches were against teams not in the mountain or pacific time zone. I recognize that the MWC is geographically farther east than the WCC - but then the California schools in the MWC also had very high % of games east of the Rockies. Fresno State (72.7%), San Diego State (50%), and San Jose (58.3%). And then for the WCC - San Francisco had 69.2% of their matches East of the Rockies. Utah State had the most harmful schedule for their conference - only going 6-6 and playing only 1 of their 12 matches outside the mountain or pacific time zone - but the rest of the conference scheduled well. Just because you schedule more to the East, doesn't necessarily make the scheduling better, but it certainly opens up more opportunities. I have no idea of the financial impact on these kinds of decisions - or which universities might be more sports poor. Another big difference in the scheduling of these two conferences is matches against the PAC12. 17.9% of the matches by the WCC is against the PAC12 while only 5.8% of the MWC matches are against the PAC12. That 17.9% is kind of an RPI killer - the ACC, Big 12, and SEC don't play the Big Ten this much - they will keep it below 10%. What is worse - not even the best WCC teams were playing PAC teams. BYU only played one match against the PAC and San Diego two. Big West only played 32.7% of their matches against teams east of the Rockies. SJSU convinced some terrible teams from the Northeast to come out to their tourney and Fresno St. got 4 Ws opening weekend by taking a tour of New England. The MWC would not have been a 3-bid league if they had played local teams and went 3-4 instead of 7-0. Probably would have ended up as a one bid league in that scenario - even though the relative quality of all teams is the same. And this is why we need a system that evaluates SOS beyond W-L.
|
|